Critique of note-taking systems
Baldur Bjarnason's critique of note-taking systems
For more details, see: The promise and distraction of productivity and note-taking systems
Baldur Bjarnason, in his writing on digital tools and knowledge work, has provided sharp critiques of popular note-taking systems and the broader "tools for thought" movement. His perspective is particularly valuable because it challenges many of the assumptions underlying modern note-taking applications and methodologies.
Bjarnason argues that most digital note-taking systems suffer from fundamental misunderstandings about how knowledge work actually happens. He critiques the common obsession with linking and connection-making tools (like Roam Research, Obsidian, and similar systems) as often creating more overhead than value. His argument is that the effort required to maintain elaborate linking systems frequently exceeds the benefits they provide, leading to what he calls "productivity theater"—the appearance of sophisticated knowledge management without actual improvement in thinking or output.
A key insight from Bjarnason is his observation that many note-taking systems are designed around idealised workflows that don't match how people actually work. Real knowledge work is messy, non-linear, and context-dependent. Systems that require extensive upfront organisation or maintenance often fail because they demand a level of discipline and consistency that most people can't sustain alongside their actual work.
Bjarnason also critiques the "second brain" metaphor popular in personal knowledge management circles, arguing that external note systems can't and shouldn't try to replicate human memory and cognition. Instead, they should complement human thinking by handling specific tasks that computers do well—storage, search, and recall—while acknowledging that synthesis, creativity, and insight remain fundamentally human activities.
His perspective emphasizes the importance of friction reduction over feature proliferation. Rather than adding more ways to connect and organise information, tools should focus on making it easier to capture, find, and use information when actually needed. This often means simpler, more focused tools rather than comprehensive knowledge management platforms.
Possible critique of Commonplace in this context:
- Progressive complexity attempts to address Bjarnason's critique of upfront organisation overhead, but may still fall into the trap of requiring users to understand and navigate multiple abstraction layers
- Schema inference aims to reduce maintenance burden, but could create new forms of "productivity theater" where users spend time refining automatically-generated schemas rather than doing actual work
- Card-based approach supports messy workflows, yet the very concept of schemas and collections may impose organisational overhead that conflicts with truly non-linear thinking
- Claims focus on immediate utility, but features like visual connections and Commonscript may prioritise sophisticated knowledge management over simple capture and retrieval
- Recognizes tools should augment human thinking, but the complexity of inlets, outlets, and event-driven programming may create cognitive overhead that interferes with natural thought processes
- Emphasizes reducing friction, yet the federation model, copy-on-write versioning, and multi-layered architecture may introduce new forms of complexity that users must learn and maintain
- Risk of becoming another comprehensive knowledge management platform despite intentions to avoid this trap